Nitpicking in the cause of accuracy, the school didn't fire her because her husband beat her, they fired her because he came to the school and was a threat to the children. Parents were threatening to remove kids from school. Apples and oranges I know, and still a dick move.

It would be nice if just for a change the Catholic Church behaved a though women were people too, just to mix things up a bit.

Spiralmonkey:Nitpicking in the cause of accuracy, the school didn't fire her because her husband beat her, they fired her because he came to the school and was a threat to the children. Parents were threatening to remove kids from school. Apples and oranges I know, and still a dick move.It would be nice if just for a change the Catholic Church behaved a though women were people too, just to mix things up a bit.

Under that logic, anyone who is a victim of a crime should be banned from teaching. You know, in case their attacker ever follows them to work.

Satanic_Hamster:Spiralmonkey: Nitpicking in the cause of accuracy, the school didn't fire her because her husband beat her, they fired her because he came to the school and was a threat to the children. Parents were threatening to remove kids from school. Apples and oranges I know, and still a dick move.It would be nice if just for a change the Catholic Church behaved a though women were people too, just to mix things up a bit.

Under that logic, anyone who is a victim of a crime should be banned from teaching. You know, in case their attacker ever follows them to work.

Dollars to donuts says a lawyer or risk manager made this recommendation to mitigate the risk of litigation if psycho dad came to the school and hurt someone. A wrongful termination suit is a lot cheaper than some tort suit arising from some act of extreme violence.

Nabb1:Dollars to donuts says a lawyer or risk manager made this recommendation to mitigate the risk of litigation if psycho dad came to the school and hurt someone. A wrongful termination suit is a lot cheaper than some tort suit arising from some act of extreme violence.

The psycho dad DID come to the school, that's why they didn't want her around.

shiatty solution, but the best solution is to take out the dad. This wasn't a church decision, it was a liability decision because parents complained.

Of course, Fark liberals won't understand the nuances of the situation.

Spiralmonkey:Nitpicking in the cause of accuracy, the school didn't fire her because her husband beat her, they fired her because he came to the school and was a threat to the children. Parents were threatening to remove kids from school.

But if subby didn't mention that, it would not have been sensational enough for a greenlight! Don't let article facts get in the way of page clicks!

Do you assign partisanship to absolutely everything? This isn't a situation where "liberals" are annoyed. It's that some poor woman got screwed by the actions of her husband. It's entirely apolitical. This is an issue of humanity and the absurdity of how we sh*t ourselves because we're "thinking of the children," not left or right politics.

/I hope I just haven't read enough of your posts to find you to be an excellent troll I bit//some of my favorite Farkers are Master Trolls///they have a sense of humor, though

Lsherm:fusillade762: Lsherm: Of course, Fark liberals won't understand the nuances of the situation.

Why do you have to be a jackass and try to turn this into a partisan shiatfest?

Because this:

She's a member of a church that tacitly condones child abuse and suddenly has a complaint about abuse herself

Why is that a liberal thing? The Catholic church doesn't knowingly cover-up child abuse and protect and re-locate the abusers? Those documented facts are a liberal thing? Why do conservatives support child sexual abuse?

Why do you have to be a jackass and try to turn this into a partisan shiatfest?

Because this:

She's a member of a church that tacitly condones child abuse and suddenly has a complaint about abuse herself

Why is that a liberal thing? The Catholic church doesn't knowingly cover-up child abuse and protect and re-locate the abusers? Those documented facts are a liberal thing? Why do conservatives support child sexual abuse?

And as for the "liberals won't understand the nuance" claim: I call bullshiat.

Satanic_Hamster:Spiralmonkey: Nitpicking in the cause of accuracy, the school didn't fire her because her husband beat her, they fired her because he came to the school and was a threat to the children. Parents were threatening to remove kids from school. Apples and oranges I know, and still a dick move.It would be nice if just for a change the Catholic Church behaved a though women were people too, just to mix things up a bit.

Under that logic, anyone who is a victim of a crime should be banned from teaching. You know, in case their attacker ever follows them to work.

No, hysterical one, the difference here is that the violent one DID show up at the workplace, in violation of a restraining order!

This isn't about women. If a male attracted violent felons to the school he'd be gone too. Nobody's punishing the victim here. Her presence poses a substantial hazard, so she has to go.

Sucks for her but the school is not to blame. Even without the ministerial exception protection (she taught religious classes), I doubt that she would prevail in a lawsuit. The school is not obliged to surround itself with armed guards to protect her and everyone else.

I wonder who farkers would be blaming if the ex-husband went after his wife, and maybe some students, with a gun. Wait, no I don't. I don't like what the school did here, but come on! What were the alternatives? It's a shiatty situation all around. I'm on her side, she deserves a full pension or something if they have to cut her loose like that, but I'm not jumping at the bit to blame a regular fark-favorite punching bag when they are in an impossible situation.

violentsalvation:I wonder who farkers would be blaming if the ex-husband went after his wife, and maybe some students, with a gun. Wait, no I don't. I don't like what the school did here, but come on! What were the alternatives? It's a shiatty situation all around. I'm on her side, she deserves a full pension or something if they have to cut her loose like that, but I'm not jumping at the bit to blame a regular fark-favorite punching bag when they are in an impossible situation.

She doesn't deserve a full pension, ffs. She's getting paid through August. She hasn't worked since January.

Why do you have to be a jackass and try to turn this into a partisan shiatfest?

Because this:

She's a member of a church that tacitly condones child abuse and suddenly has a complaint about abuse herself

Why is that a liberal thing? The Catholic church doesn't knowingly cover-up child abuse and protect and re-locate the abusers? Those documented facts are a liberal thing? Why do conservatives support child sexual abuse?

And as for the "liberals won't understand the nuance" claim: I call bullshiat.

some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

Fear and aggressionDogmatism and intolerance of ambiguityUncertainty avoidanceNeed for cognitive closureTerror management

Conservatives don't feel the need to jump through complex, intellectual hoops in order to understand or justify some of their positions, he said. "They are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm," Glaser said.

You have that at the ready, and accuse me of being "political." Yet you didn't even read enough to understand that her dismissal was from the concern of parents of other children, not the Catholic church.

violentsalvation:I wonder who farkers would be blaming if the ex-husband went after his wife, and maybe some students, with a gun. Wait, no I don't. I don't like what the school did here, but come on! What were the alternatives? It's a shiatty situation all around. I'm on her side, she deserves a full pension or something if they have to cut her loose like that, but I'm not jumping at the bit to blame a regular fark-favorite punching bag when they are in an impossible situation.

They made a decision based on a potential threat that may or may not happen that had an actual negative consequence of the lives of five innocent people. Their actions made the world a worse place right here and now. That is wrong.

Arthur Jumbles:violentsalvation: I wonder who farkers would be blaming if the ex-husband went after his wife, and maybe some students, with a gun. Wait, no I don't. I don't like what the school did here, but come on! What were the alternatives? It's a shiatty situation all around. I'm on her side, she deserves a full pension or something if they have to cut her loose like that, but I'm not jumping at the bit to blame a regular fark-favorite punching bag when they are in an impossible situation.

They made a decision based on a potential threat that may or may not happen that had an actual negative consequence of the lives of five innocent people. Their actions made the world a worse place right here and now. That is wrong.

BarkingUnicorn:Arthur Jumbles: violentsalvation: I wonder who farkers would be blaming if the ex-husband went after his wife, and maybe some students, with a gun. Wait, no I don't. I don't like what the school did here, but come on! What were the alternatives? It's a shiatty situation all around. I'm on her side, she deserves a full pension or something if they have to cut her loose like that, but I'm not jumping at the bit to blame a regular fark-favorite punching bag when they are in an impossible situation.

They made a decision based on a potential threat that may or may not happen that had an actual negative consequence of the lives of five innocent people. Their actions made the world a worse place right here and now. That is wrong.

1) Restraining orders do actually work. With the body of 9-1-1 calls in TFA, that shouldn't have been hard to get.2) The diocese fired her, not the school. Instead, they could easily have found another position for her somewhere else in he diocese.3) The police don't need her to be the one to call them for domestic abuse. If her ex shows up and is abusive, they can report it, and the cops will investigate. And probably act.

No, this is just another case of the Church choosing the least Christ-like path possible.

Arthur Jumbles:BarkingUnicorn: Arthur Jumbles: violentsalvation: I wonder who farkers would be blaming if the ex-husband went after his wife, and maybe some students, with a gun. Wait, no I don't. I don't like what the school did here, but come on! What were the alternatives? It's a shiatty situation all around. I'm on her side, she deserves a full pension or something if they have to cut her loose like that, but I'm not jumping at the bit to blame a regular fark-favorite punching bag when they are in an impossible situation.

They made a decision based on a potential threat that may or may not happen that had an actual negative consequence of the lives of five innocent people. Their actions made the world a worse place right here and now. That is wrong.

The decision was based on what actually DID happen.

Nothing bad happened, at all.

You were there? The school went into lockdown when the guy showed up in the parking lot. He's farking nuts and has no respect for restraining orders. You bet your ass I don't want his target around schoolkids.

Spiralmonkey:Nitpicking in the cause of accuracy, the school didn't fire her because her husband beat her, they fired her because he came to the school and was a threat to the children. Parents were threatening to remove kids from school. Apples and oranges I know, and still a dick move.It would be nice if just for a change the Catholic Church behaved a though women were people too, just to mix things up a bit.

If only there were some way for the school to call the police and demand that he be arrested and held as a terrorist. FLEX some of that clout and demand that he be held without bail. Demand that he be held on a 5150. Get a temporary restraining order keeping him the fark away from everyone and shoot and kill him as soon as he violates it, because you KNOW he will.

or kick her out because, you know, lawsuits and losing clients?ROFL

wait, the PARENTS were threatening to remove their snowflakes because it was dangerous? unless she was fired?

1) Restraining orders do actually work. With the body of 9-1-1 calls in TFA, that shouldn't have been hard to get.2) The diocese fired her, not the school. Instead, they could easily have found another position for her somewhere else in he diocese.3) The police don't need her to be the one to call them for domestic abuse. If her ex shows up and is abusive, they can report it, and the cops will investigate. And probably act.

No, this is just another case of the Church choosing the least Christ-like path possible.

thisthis is also why we need vigilantesa could of these nutcase dads end up dead ... sooner or later SOME of them will get the message.the current msg is meh, nothing will happen, you are a bully and it is okhmmmmmmmI guess the catholic church is full of bullies"report that bad priest and no more communion for you!"yup bullies

BarkingUnicorn:Arthur Jumbles: BarkingUnicorn: Arthur Jumbles: violentsalvation: I wonder who farkers would be blaming if the ex-husband went after his wife, and maybe some students, with a gun. Wait, no I don't. I don't like what the school did here, but come on! What were the alternatives? It's a shiatty situation all around. I'm on her side, she deserves a full pension or something if they have to cut her loose like that, but I'm not jumping at the bit to blame a regular fark-favorite punching bag when they are in an impossible situation.

They made a decision based on a potential threat that may or may not happen that had an actual negative consequence of the lives of five innocent people. Their actions made the world a worse place right here and now. That is wrong.

The decision was based on what actually DID happen.

Nothing bad happened, at all.

You were there? The school went into lockdown when the guy showed up in the parking lot. He's farking nuts and has no respect for restraining orders. You bet your ass I don't want his target around schoolkids.

So eliminate HIM.

The whole point of a society is that there are rules in place to keep bad people from having any effect on good people. If a man threatens a whole school you can't morally ask anyone in the school to be held responsible. HE is the problem. Eliminate him. You can't punish innocent people because of his shiat.

doglover:BarkingUnicorn: Arthur Jumbles: BarkingUnicorn: Arthur Jumbles: violentsalvation: I wonder who farkers would be blaming if the ex-husband went after his wife, and maybe some students, with a gun. Wait, no I don't. I don't like what the school did here, but come on! What were the alternatives? It's a shiatty situation all around. I'm on her side, she deserves a full pension or something if they have to cut her loose like that, but I'm not jumping at the bit to blame a regular fark-favorite punching bag when they are in an impossible situation.

They made a decision based on a potential threat that may or may not happen that had an actual negative consequence of the lives of five innocent people. Their actions made the world a worse place right here and now. That is wrong.

The decision was based on what actually DID happen.

Nothing bad happened, at all.

You were there? The school went into lockdown when the guy showed up in the parking lot. He's farking nuts and has no respect for restraining orders. You bet your ass I don't want his target around schoolkids.

So eliminate HIM.

The whole point of a society is that there are rules in place to keep bad people from having any effect on good people. If a man threatens a whole school you can't morally ask anyone in the school to be held responsible. HE is the problem. Eliminate him. You can't punish innocent people because of his shiat.

I'd love to eliminate him permanently. He was sent to prison on two felonies and is getting out after only six months. The rules put in place by society aren't working. So what's the school supposed to do? Just say, "Oh, well, society's rules don't work so we'll just take chances with other people's kids?"

Nobody's punishing the victim. I don't punish a tree if I cut it down so it won't attract lightning to my house AGAIN.

BarkingUnicorn:doglover: BarkingUnicorn: Arthur Jumbles: BarkingUnicorn: Arthur Jumbles: violentsalvation: I wonder who farkers would be blaming if the ex-husband went after his wife, and maybe some students, with a gun. Wait, no I don't. I don't like what the school did here, but come on! What were the alternatives? It's a shiatty situation all around. I'm on her side, she deserves a full pension or something if they have to cut her loose like that, but I'm not jumping at the bit to blame a regular fark-favorite punching bag when they are in an impossible situation.

They made a decision based on a potential threat that may or may not happen that had an actual negative consequence of the lives of five innocent people. Their actions made the world a worse place right here and now. That is wrong.

The decision was based on what actually DID happen.

Nothing bad happened, at all.

You were there? The school went into lockdown when the guy showed up in the parking lot. He's farking nuts and has no respect for restraining orders. You bet your ass I don't want his target around schoolkids.

So eliminate HIM.

The whole point of a society is that there are rules in place to keep bad people from having any effect on good people. If a man threatens a whole school you can't morally ask anyone in the school to be held responsible. HE is the problem. Eliminate him. You can't punish innocent people because of his shiat.

I'd love to eliminate him permanently. He was sent to prison on two felonies and is getting out after only six months. The rules put in place by society aren't working. So what's the school supposed to do? Just say, "Oh, well, society's rules don't work so we'll just take chances with other people's kids?"

Nobody's punishing the victim. I don't punish a tree if I cut it down so it won't attract lightning to my house AGAIN.

The woman and her children are being hurt. To use your example the tree is being hurt too. You could install a lightening rod, which would save your house and the tree, but you choose not to. The school has lots of options that can protect their students without harming anyone. In fact, it seems that they already have procedures that HAVE worked to keep them safe. Blacklisting this woman and her children because of the actions of her ex-husband was wrong.

Arthur Jumbles:Nobody's punishing the victim. I don't punish a tree if I cut it down so it won't attract lightning to my house AGAIN.

The woman and her children are being hurt. To use your example the tree is being hurt too. You could install a lightening rod, which would save your house and the tree, but you choose not to. The school has lots of options that can protect their students without harming anyone. In fact, it seems that they already have procedures that HAVE worked to keep them safe. Blacklisting this woman and her children because of the actions of her ex-husband was wrong.

Yeah, like what options? Hire private guards and raise everyone's tuition? Lock down the school every time a strange car pulls into the parking lot, driving the kids nuts and lengthening the school year? Install a videoconference setup so she can teach from home?

Arthur Jumbles:BarkingUnicorn: doglover: BarkingUnicorn: Arthur Jumbles: BarkingUnicorn: Arthur Jumbles: violentsalvation: I wonder who farkers would be blaming if the ex-husband went after his wife, and maybe some students, with a gun. Wait, no I don't. I don't like what the school did here, but come on! What were the alternatives? It's a shiatty situation all around. I'm on her side, she deserves a full pension or something if they have to cut her loose like that, but I'm not jumping at the bit to blame a regular fark-favorite punching bag when they are in an impossible situation.

They made a decision based on a potential threat that may or may not happen that had an actual negative consequence of the lives of five innocent people. Their actions made the world a worse place right here and now. That is wrong.

The decision was based on what actually DID happen.

Nothing bad happened, at all.

You were there? The school went into lockdown when the guy showed up in the parking lot. He's farking nuts and has no respect for restraining orders. You bet your ass I don't want his target around schoolkids.

So eliminate HIM.

The whole point of a society is that there are rules in place to keep bad people from having any effect on good people. If a man threatens a whole school you can't morally ask anyone in the school to be held responsible. HE is the problem. Eliminate him. You can't punish innocent people because of his shiat.

I'd love to eliminate him permanently. He was sent to prison on two felonies and is getting out after only six months. The rules put in place by society aren't working. So what's the school supposed to do? Just say, "Oh, well, society's rules don't work so we'll just take chances with other people's kids?"

Nobody's punishing the victim. I don't punish a tree if I cut it down so it won't attract lightning to my house AGAIN.

The woman and her children are being hurt. To use your example the tree is being hurt too. You could install a lightening rod, ...

Okay, but how do you protect the whole school from a crazed person who is potentially violent? What if he decides to bring a gun and shoot up her whole class? Even armed guards at other schools didn't stop school shootings.

If this story had gone the other way, and the school hadn't fired her, and he had showed up and shot her and a couple kids, NO ONE would be applauding the school and saying they did the right thing.

This is nothing new, and not exclusive to Catholics. My mothers first husband beat her. Her church and all of her supposed church friends wanted nothing to do with here when she divorced him. They tried to get her to stay and "work it out."

Probably one of the biggest reasons I want nothing to do with organised religion.

crab66:This is nothing new, and not exclusive to Catholics. My mothers first husband beat her. Her church and all of her supposed church friends wanted nothing to do with here when she divorced him. They tried to get her to stay and "work it out."

Probably one of the biggest reasons I want nothing to do with organised religion.

Yeah, it's exactly the same as TFA's situation.

Funny how this DIVORCED woman was teaching RELIGIOUS classes at a Catholic school. They have no tolerance at all.

BarkingUnicorn:crab66: This is nothing new, and not exclusive to Catholics. My mothers first husband beat her. Her church and all of her supposed church friends wanted nothing to do with here when she divorced him. They tried to get her to stay and "work it out."

Probably one of the biggest reasons I want nothing to do with organised religion.

Yeah, it's exactly the same as TFA's situation.

Funny how this DIVORCED woman was teaching RELIGIOUS classes at a Catholic school. They have no tolerance at all.

Divorce isn't the problem. They cannot remarry unless it's annulled by the church. Common misconception.

As to the other shiat. Ugh. Horrible situation. I feel for her. And at the same time I wouldn't want my nephew at her school or in her class because of her insane and criminal ex, so I also understand the fears of the parents and the school. Utterly unfair to her and the kids.

There are a lot of victim assistance funds out there, as well as help for people who've been battered in a relationship. Hopefully that can assist her in surviving currently and with finding new work as well. Many people battered in a relationship are faced with economic and employment hardships. It's part of the leverage used to keep them trapped.

Not ideal, but highlights the need for such programs. Until someone has a better suggestion. =-\